Ovieda

I respectfully dissent.

Chief Justice Gibson's "judicial seed" will not blossom in this fallow field.

Freedom from unreasonable government intrusion is at the core of the Fourth Amendment, which "draws 'a firm line at *74 the entrance to the house.' " ( Kyllo v. United States (2001) 533 U.S. 27 , 31, 40, 121 S.Ct. 2038 , 150 L.Ed.2d 94 .) " '[P]hysical entry of the home is the chief evil against which ... the Fourth Amendment is directed.' [Citation.] And a principal protection against *624 unnecessary intrusions into private dwellings is the warrant requirement imposed by the Fourth Amendment." ( Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984) 466 U.S. 740 , 748, 104 S.Ct. 2091 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 .) "[S]earches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." ( Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 573 , 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 .)

Relying on a "community caretaking" theory, the majority approves a warrantless intrusion into a home based solely upon police speculation about what they "could" find inside. The officers admittedly had no information that anyone, child or adult, was inside the house and required help. Indeed, everyone reported to be in the house was…

*617 Over 50 years ago, wise and prescient Chief Justice Phil Gibson planted the judicial seed for what we now call the "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment. We apply it here. ( People v. Roberts (1956) 47 Cal.2d 374 , 379-380, 303 P.2d 721 ( Roberts ); see also People v. Ray (1999) 21 Cal.4th 464 , 471, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 981 P.2d 928 ( Ray ).)

Willie Ovieda appeals his conviction by plea to manufacturing concentrated cannabis ( Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a) ) and possession of an assault weapon ( Pen. Code, § 30605, subd. (a) ), entered after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence ( Pen. Code, § 1538.5 ). Pursuant to a negotiated plea, probation was granted with 180 days county jail and outpatient mental health treatment.

Appellant contends his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when officers, in responding to a 911 call that he was about to shoot himself, made a "cursory search" of appellant's residence to make sure no one was hurt and no firearms were lying about. 1 The trial court factually found that *69 the search was a reasonable exercise of the officers' community caretaking duty. We affirm because there is no reason to…